Friday, April 25, 2014

India’s elections: Hate speech and the “greatest show on Earth”

Electioneering for the Indian elections of 2014 has reached a fever
pitch. Never before in the history of modern India has it seemed likely
that the country is ready to cut its cord with the Congress Party’s
Gandhi family, and never before has its chief opposition party, the
Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) been projected as the sole inheritance of
one man – Narendra Modi.

The “greatest show on Earth” – the Indian elections – is underway.
There are 37 days of polling across 9 states, with a 814 million strong
electorate, and more than 500 political parties to choose from. The
hoardings all seem to scream the “development” agenda, but unfortunately
in India, this conversation seems to be skating on thin ice. Cracks
quickly appear, and beneath the surface, political parties seem to be
indulging in the same hate speech, communal politicking and calculations
that work to polarise the electorate and garner votes.

Hate speech in India is monitored by a number of laws in India.
These are under the Indian Penal Code (Sections 153[A], Section 153[B],
Section 295, Section 295A, Section 298, Section 505[1], Section 505
[2]), the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 95) and Representation of
the People Act (Section 123[A], Section 123[B]). The Constitution of
India itself guarantees freedom of expression, but with reasonable
restricts. At the same time, in response to a Public Interest Litigation
by an NGO looking to curtail hate speech in India, the Court ruled that it cannot
“curtail fundamental rights of people. It is a precious rights
guaranteed by Constitution… We are 128 million people and there would be
128 million views.” Reflecting this thought further, a recent ruling by
the Supreme Court of India, the bench declared that
the “lack of prosecution for hate speeches was not because the existing
laws did not possess sufficient provisions; instead, it was due to lack
of enforcement.” In fact, the Supreme Court of India has directed the
Law Commission to look into the matter of hate speech — often with
communal undertones — made by political parties in India. The court is
looking for guidelines to prevent provocative statements.

Unenviably, it is the job of India’s Election Commission to ensure
that during the elections, the campaigning adheres to a strict Model
Code of Conduct. Unsurprisingly, the first point in the EC’s rules
(Model Code of Conduct) is: “No party or candidate shall include in any
activity which may aggravate existing differences or create mutual
hatred or cause tension between different castes and communities,
religious or linguistic.” The third point states that “There shall be no
appeal to caste or communal feelings for securing votes. Mosques,
churches, temples or other places of worship shall not be used as forum
for election propaganda.”

This election season, the EC has armed itself to take on the menace
of hate speeches. It has directed all its state chief electoral officers
to closely monitor campaigns on a daily basis
that include video recording of all campaigns. Only with factual
evidence in hand can any official file a First Information Report (FIR),
and a copy of the Model Code of Conduct is given along with all written
permissions to hold rallies and public meetings.

As a result, many leaders have been censured by the EC for their
alleged hate speeches during the campaign. The BJP’s Amit Shah was
briefly banned by the EC for his campaign speech in the riot affected
state of Uttar Pradesh, that, Shah had said that the general election,
especially in western UP, “is one of honour, it is an opportunity to take revenge
and to teach a lesson to people who have committed injustice”. He has
apologized for his comments. Azam Khan, a leader from the Samajwadi
Party, was banned from public rallies by the EC after he insinuated in a
campaign speech that the 1999 Kargil War with Pakistan had been won by
India on account of Muslim soldiers in the Army. The EC called both these
speeches, “highly provocative (speeches) which have the impact of
aggravating existing differences or create mutual hatred between
different communities.”

Other politicians have jumped on the bandwagon as well. Most
recently, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad’s Praveen Togadia has been reported
as making a speech targeting Muslims who have bought properties in Hindu
neighborhoods. “If he does not relent, go with stones, tyres and
tomatoes to his office. There is nothing wrong in it… I have done it in
the past and Muslims have lost both property and money,” he has said. There was the case of Imran Masood of the Congress who threatened to “chop into pieces”
BJP Prime Ministerial candidate Narendra Modi – a remark that forced
Congress’s senior leader Rahul Gandhi to cancel his rally in the same
area following the controversy that erupted. Then there is
Modi-supporter Giriraj Singh who has said that
“people opposed to Modi will be driven out of India and they should go
to Pakistan.” In South India, Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) president K
Chandrasekhar Rao termed both TDP and YSR Congress (YSRCP) as ‘Andhra
parties’ and urged the people of Telangana to shunt them out of the
region. The Election Commission has directed district officials to present the video footage of his speeches
at public meetings, in order to determine punishment, if needed.
Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah has been served notice by the EC
for calling Narendra Modi a “mass murderer”; a reference to his alleged role in the Gujarat riots of 2002.

Shekhar Gupta, editor of the national paper, the Indian Express has published a piece ominously titled “Secularism is Dead,”
but instead appeals to the reader to have faith in Indian democracy far
beyond what some petty communal politicians might allow. The fact that
the BJP’s Prime Ministerial candidate is inextricability linked in
public consciousness to communal riots in his home state of Gujarat has
only compounded speeches over and above what people believe is the
communal politics of the BJP that stands for the Hindu majority of
India. In contrast, many believe that by playing to minority politics,
the Congress indulges in a different kind of communal politics. And then
there are countless regional parties, creating constituencies along
various caste and regional fissures.
However, perhaps the last word can be given to commentator Pratap Bhanu Mehta who writes of the Indian election:
“But what is it about the structures of our thinking about communalism
that 60 years after Independence, we seem to be revisiting the same
questions over and over again? Is there some deeper phenomenon that the
BJP-Congress system seems two sides of the same coin to so many, even on
this issue? The point is not about the political equivalence of two
political parties. People will make up their own minds. But is there
something about the way we have conceptualised the problem of majority
and minority, trapped in compulsory identities, that makes communalism
the inevitable result?”

It is this inevitability of communal diatribe, of the lowest common
denominators in politics that Indian politics need to rise above. This
is being done, one comment at a time, as long as the Election Commission
is watching. The bigger challenge lies beyond the results of 16 May,
2014.